Christ in Daniel 9

[asterisktom]

This is taken from the rapture thread. Since the OP is no longer the topic I thought it best to have a new thread reflecting this current topic.

But I have never heard one try to make the "he" of 9:27 Messiah. What is your "biblical foundation" for this.

Not trying to be argumentative, just curious as to how you arrived at this interpretation of this verse?

Did you know that this view is not a new one at all, but used to be the majority view. Most commentators and writers up until about two centuries ago saw all these pronouns (or, at the very least, most) to refer to Messiah, not antichrist. Neither did they see a gap of many centuries between the 69th and 70th week. Here is a good sampling of writers, modern and not-so-modern, who believe along these lines:

Barnes, Albert: Barnes Notes on the Old Testament (ca 1942)
Calvin, John: Calvin's Commentaries (mid 1500's)
Clarke, A: Clarke's Commentary: Daniel (ca 1850's)
Gill, John: Exposition of the Old and New Testaments (ca mid-1700's)
Henry, Matthew: Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible (1706)
Jamieson, R., Fausset, & Brown: A commentary, critical and explanatory (1871)
Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F: Commentary on the Old Testament (1866-1891)
Young, E J: The Prophecy of Daniel (1949)
Geneva Study Bible: Study Notes (1599)
Mauro, Philip: The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation (1921)
Leupold, H. C.: Exposition of Daniel (Baker Book House, 1949)

Source: http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_924-27.htm (Note: this website goes on to defend the opposite conclusion)

The above authors represent a wide range of Protestant denominations: Presbyterian, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, etc. This general belief in the chronological integrity of 70 weeks, and in the Christ-centeredness of it, was widely held by a variety of Christians.

The same website above also shows an even larger, but decidedly more modern, group that espouses the current line on this passage.

All of this is just to show that the view has a long history to it. I would say it goes back to the Bible, but I doubt that you would grant that.

Next I want to discuss the actual text of Daniel 9:24 - 27. Well, I actually did that in a series of articles I have done over the years, the most recent being this one:
http://asterisktom.xanga.com/605167131/six-promises-of-christ-to-his-people-updated-2010/

But I'll see if I can't summarize all these in a little bit, reflecting your actual comments.

 

[asterisktom]

Daniel 9:24-27 - one Prince, not two

Here is Daniel 9:24-27 (New King James Version) with comments

24 “ Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.

This is all Christ. Agreed? BTW, I believe that the "Most Holy" refers to the Messiah, not the Holy of Holies. A Person, not place.

25 “ Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
The street shall be built again, and the wall,
Even in troublesome times.

Much of this was covered in other posts I did, as well as in articles I wrote elsewhere.

26 “ And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

Cut off - at Calvary.
The people - the Jews.
The Prince who is to come - is still referring to Christ. Why do people - especially in modern times - insist that this can only be antichrist? Shouldn't context be a weighty consideration? The previous two verses spoke of Messiah. The previous verse (25) had just promised that this Prince was coming. And now this verse carries the thought - "the Prince who is to come" (ie. "the Prince I was just talking about").

Consider this also: If it was antichrist that was spoken of here why do we read "the people ... shall destroy"? Not the prince. And yet a reading of Josephus brings out very vividly just how Messiah's people, the hardened Jews, trashed their heritage, having already foresworn their Messiah. It was the obduracy of the Jews in Jerusalem, not the more lenient Romans, that finally destroyed the city.

27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

This he should be "He", Christ. Because the Angel Gabriel wanted to assure the saints that the inveterate enemies of Messiah would swiftly be judged he speaks of their destruction at the end of verse 26, but now in verse 27a returns again to Messiah's mission.

Christ shall confirm the Covenant - "This is the New Covenant in My blood". This verb "confirm" (BIGBIR) never refers to something made anew. This whole antichrist fiction flies in the face of the actual Bible text. There is no verse here (or elsewhere) that tells of some supposed treaty that is broken halfway through a "tribulation period" (sic).

Christ brings an end to offering - "It is finished". There are no more sacrifices offered or needed.

Who is the one who determines this desolation of the Jews in Ad 70? God Himself. Because they were implacable ("unable to be persuaded into a covenant", see Timothy) they get the consequence - their once-sought Messiah "in flaming fire taking vengeance against them" as well as against all who "do not obey the gospel".

 

[Darrell C]

Hello Asterisktom,

Thats a new one on me, brother.

Okay, I can understand your thought process, but I see a flaw in this interpretation:

In 9:26, if the prince is Christ, and, as you say, He establishes the New Covenant at the beginning of the Tribulation (and it would have to be at that time in order to coincide with scripture), where do you find supportive scripture to show Christ arriving at the beginning of the tribulation?

In v. 27, if, again, the "he" is Christ, and He causes sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, how does that compare with what the Lord said in the gospels and Revelation?

Also, would not v. 24 indicate that the seventy weeks will be finished before transgression is finished, and sin is ended, reconciliation for iniquity, and everlasting righteousness, the sealing up of visions and prophecy, as well as the anointing of the most Holy (I too, regard this as speaking of Messiah)?

Look forward to your response.

God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

My take on Daniel's Seventieth Week [I believe this is a repeat post}

Much of the dispensational theology of the ‘end times’ is based on faulty exegesis of this vision of the prophet Daniel, particularly Daniel 9:26-27. There are some who refer to the period of time discussed in the entire vision as Israel's ‘prophetic destiny’.

Daniel 9:26,27, KJV
26. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

From this passage we see that the Messiah, Jesus Christ was ‘cut off’, killed, sometime after the end of the 69th week [actually after three and one half years when he confirmed the New Covenant through His sacrificial death]. There is absolutely no basis in the text of the passage to indicate a delay in the start of the seventieth week until some far distant future time. We know from Scripture that the Messiah was killed, not for himself, but for the sins of those chosen in Him from the foundation of the world [Ephesians 1: 4]. Sometime after the death of the Messiah the city and sanctuary were to be destroyed by a people belonging to an unnamed prince. The armies of Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

The call of Abraham and the eventual setting apart of the nation Israel played an indispensable role in the outworking of God’s purpose of salvation, the Covenant of Grace. The Apostle Paul in his letter to the Saints at Rome writes of the role of the Jews in God’s purpose as follows:

Romans 3:1,2, KJV
1. What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision?
2. Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

It was through the nation Israel that God would fulfill the promise given in the Garden of Eden [Genesis 3:15] and bring the Second Person in the Godhead into the world, not in the glory of the Godhead but as a Virgin born baby. Israel’s God given role, her ‘prophetic destiny’, was completed when Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, completed His work - His sacrificial death and resurrection for the redemption of the elect, both Jew and Gentile, and the creation and empowerment of the Church in its New Testament form. The ultimate fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham [Genesis 12:1-4] is explained by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the church at Galatia:

Galatians 3:8, KJV
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Galatians 3:16, KJV
16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Jesus Christ, sometime after His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, clearly indicated the end of the role of the nation Israel in God’s purpose in the salvation of His elect when He said:

Matthew 21:42-44, KJV
42. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

The dispensational theology of the ‘end times’ declares that prophetic time for the Jews stopped with the 69th week, that is their ‘prophetic destiny’ is interrupted. For 69 weeks prophetic week follows prophetic week, routinely and logically. Then, according to dispensational theology, God grants a delay, an interruption of indefinite length before Israel is to fulfill her ‘prophetic destiny’. The basis for this delay in the fulfillment of Israel’s ‘prophetic destiny’ is her rejection of the Incarnate God, who came as the Suffering servant, Jesus Christ, and His Messianic Kingdom. God is then forced into a fall back position of the ‘parenthesis’ Church.

Those who hold this position should read again very carefully the dialogue of Jesus Christ with two of His disciples on the road to Emmaus [Luke 24:13-32]. Even more significant is the claim that Jesus Christ made in His prayer for the Church before His betrayal, John 17, that He had finished the work that the Father had given Him to do.

John 17:3,4, KJV
3. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ was not a Gospel of an earthly Messianic Kingdom but the spiritual Kingdom of God. There has been only one true Gospel ever preached [Mark 1:1, 14; Luke 4:43; Acts 20:24; Acts 28:31; Romans 1:16], the Gospel preached by Jesus Christ and the Apostles, the Gospel preached to Abraham [Galatians 3:8], the Gospel that the Apostle Paul defends to the church at Galatia [Galatians 1:6-9].

Furthermore, the rejection of Jesus Christ by the Jews is a fulfillment of prophecy [Isaiah 6:9, 10] as explained by Jesus Christ to His disciples [Matthew 13:14, 15] and the Apostle Paul’s denunciation of the Jews at Rome who rejected the Gospel [Acts 28:25-28]. Not all Jews rejected the Gospel of Salvation and these became witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the nucleus of the New Testament Church, who, though hated and persecuted by the unbelieving Jews, began the spread of the Gospel throughout the world.

As indicated above the dispensationalists believe that prophetic time has stopped for the Jews before the 70th week and will be resumed after an indefinite ‘Church age’ when the ‘times of the Gentiles have been fulfilled’ and the Church has been removed from the earth.

Daniel 9:27 is perhaps the most difficult and controversial passage in this prophecy. Dispensationalism believes this verse and part of Daniel 9:26 corresponds to the 70th week and will be fulfilled during the seven year ‘great tribulation’ whenever that occurs. I believe the prophecy related to this verse was fulfilled through the ministry and death of Jesus Christ.

Daniel 9:27, KJV
27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

It seems obvious that the subject of this passage refers back to the subject of verse 26, the Messiah. Note first that this passage does not say that He shall make a covenant but that He shall confirm a covenant. The word confirm translates the Hebrew word ‘gabar’ and is used 25 times in the Old Testament. It is translated prevail 14 times and confirm once. The passage could read “He shall cause a covenant to prevail”.

Jesus Christ came to die [John 12:27, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Acts 2:23] for the sins of His people and for His Church. By His death and resurrection He fulfilled His part in the Covenant of Grace, made within the Godhead before the foundation of the world. Jesus Christ preached the Kingdom of God and salvation from sin, primarily to the Jewish people, for about three and one half years before He was crucified on the cross of Calvary. The death of Jesus Christ in the midst of the week meant that the the sacrifice and the oblation offered in the temple were useless, as indicated by the rending of the veil of the temple from top to bottom opening the way into the Holy of Holies. Still the sacrifices persisted until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

Understanding the last half of the verse is much more difficult. We are then told: for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation. One may wonder if the continuation of useless animal sacrifices in the temple that God had rejected were considered to be an abomination. Certainly these animal sacrifices were useless. The writer of Proverbs tells us:

Proverbs 15:8, KJV
8. The sacrifice of the wicked [is] an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright [is] his delight.

For these abominations Jesus Christ shall make ‘it’, the temple, desolate until the consummation, that is, the end of time. Perhaps this is what Jesus Christ was referring to when He said:

Matthew 23:37-39, KJV
37. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!
38. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

 

[Darrell C]

Hi Old Regular,

It is late, so I will pose a few questions only about faulty exegesis.

It would seem you denounce those who do not see the weeks running consecutive, but it is okay to stretch it out to A.D. 70. Because in v. 27 sacrifice and offering cease.

It did not until A.D. 70.

Now, I believe prophecy can be fulfilled in multiples (i.e. Joel/Acts 2), but either prophecy was fulfilled as you seem to indicate (correct me if I misread you), cosecutively, or, it wasn't.

If it was, then the prophecy of v. 24 was fulfilled either 3 1/2 or, depending how you look at it, 7 years after Messiah was cut off.

I think this would have been written in the book of Acts if it had.

Also, how do you reconcile Matt. 24, and Revelation with Daniel, which pointed to a future fulfillment? Revelation, with an approximate date of about A.D. 90, looked torward the future even at that point.

I'm guessing that you are amillennial...is this right?

Would like to talk to you about that, as well. What you do with verses stating there will be a thosand year kingdom.

God bless.

 

[olegig]

Matthew 24:15 (King James Version)
15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

 

[asterisktom]

Hello Asterisktom,

Thats a new one on me, brother.

Okay, I can understand your thought process, but I see a flaw in this interpretation:

In 9:26, if the prince is Christ, and, as you say, He establishes the New Covenant at the beginning of the Tribulation (and it would have to be at that time in order to coincide with scripture), where do you find supportive scripture to show Christ arriving at the beginning of the tribulation?

What you are asking me to do is to support your interpretation, not mine. I underlined just two of the areas of difference.

1. He "establishes" nothing. He "confirms" the covenant, something that already exists. See my earlier comments, or OR's.

2. He does not do this "at the beginning of the Tribulation" but during His earthly ministry. See my earlier comments or that link to my longer article.

Respectfully, I believe that an insistence that your view "coincides with scripture" indicates that you are imposing your thought processes on this passage rather than letting the text teach you.

This is all I have time for this morning. Anyway, this needs to be dealt with to have any foundation for discussing further points.

Take care.

 

[asterisktom]

This verb "confirm" (BIGBIR) never refers to something made anew.

I'm not sure how I made this mistake, but GABAR is the word I should have written, not BIGBIR. Reading OR's post I noticed the mistake.

 

[OldRegular]

Hi Old Regular,

It is late, so I will pose a few questions only about faulty exegesis.

It would seem you denounce those who do not see the weeks running consecutive, but it is okay to stretch it out to A.D. 70. Because in v. 27 sacrifice and offering cease.

It did not until A.D. 70.

After the death of Jesus Christ the sacrifices and oblations were useless. Why do you think the curtain in the temple was torn asunder?

Now, I believe prophecy can be fulfilled in multiples (i.e. Joel/Acts 2), but either prophecy was fulfilled as you seem to indicate (correct me if I misread you), cosecutively, or, it wasn't.

If it was, then the prophecy of v. 24 was fulfilled either 3 1/2 or, depending how you look at it, 7 years after Messiah was cut off.

I think this would have been written in the book of Acts if it had.

Your comment is too ambiguous to get an answer!

Also, how do you reconcile Matt. 24, and Revelation with Daniel, which pointed to a future fulfillment? Revelation, with an approximate date of about A.D. 90, looked torward the future even at that point.

In Matthew 24 Jesus Christ is talking about two different events, the destruction of the temple which occurred in 70 AD and the 2nd coming at the end of the age.

People argue about when Revelation was written. To me it is irrelevant. Revelation was written for the comfort of the early Church which was undergoing persecution from both Jews and Rome and for the comfort of the Church throughout time. We win they lose!.

I'm guessing that you are amillennial...is this right?

Would like to talk to you about that, as well. What you do with verses stating there will be a thosand year kingdom.

God bless.

Revelation presents a picture of the struggle between good and evil between the 1st and 2nd coming of Jesus Christ, generally in symbolic language. We are currently living in the thousand years spoken of in Revelation 20. There will be tribulation for the Church throughout time until the 2nd coming as Jesus Christ warned. That tribulation may increase as the return of Jesus Christ approaches. However, there will be no pre trib rapture, no Great tribulation lasting 7 years and no earthly millennial kingdom. Furthermore there is only one verse mentioning a one thousand year reign which we are currently enjoying.

When Jesus Christ returns in the power and glory of the Godhead as indicated in Matthew 24 and Revelation 19 there will be the great white throne judgment, Satan and all unsaved will be cast into the lake of fire and the Church will dwell throughout eternity in the New Heavens and New Earth with GOD.

 

[olegig]

Furthermore there is only one verse mentioning a one thousand year reign which we are currently enjoying.
When Jesus Christ returns in the power and glory of the Godhead as indicated in Matthew 24 and Revelation 19 there will be the great white throne judgment, Satan and all unsaved will be cast into the lake of fire and the Church will dwell throughout eternity in the New Heavens and New Earth with GOD.

Lets see if we can tweak this time-line a bit...
In the above quote we have:
1. The thousand year reign...(nothing said about who is reigning)
2. Jesus Christ's return (commonly referred to as the Second Coming) Rev 19:11
3.The great white throne judgment.

Now,,,,let's see the Biblical time-line:
1. Jesus Christ's return...Rev 19:11
2. The thousand year reign with Christ reigning (vs 6) Rev 20:2,3,4,5,6,7
3. The great white throne judgment...Rev 20:11

I do agree the new heaven and new earth come last.

Here I have but a few words of advice: Rev 3:9 & Rev 22:19.

And about the only comment I have is one I heard from an old Southern Gentleman several years ago:

"Ya must'a got that out'o the Bible, cuss' it sure ain't in it"

 

[asterisktom]

Here I have but a few words of advice: Rev 3:9 & Rev 22:19.

And about the only comment I have is one I heard from an old Southern Gentleman several years ago:

"Ya must'a got that out'o the Bible, cuss' it sure ain't in it"

It is very ironic that a defender of the modern dispensational view on Daniel - specifically, seeing nearly two-thousand year gap, and inserting Antichrist into a Messianic passage - should then chide our position about things out'o the Bible.

Rev. 22:19 is one of the verses one reaches for when one is no longer interested in discussion, but just wants to criticize. But since you brought that verse up, in discussing this passage in Daniel, which position is the one that has to bring in outside material to construct their scenario? For the record, I am not bringing Rev. 22:19 into this. It is a serious charge, akin to saying, "Go to Hell."

By "outside material" I mean points that are not found in Scripture:

1. No place in the Bible has a gap in God's dealing, or in any time period mentioned. There are 28 (or 26, I forget right now) mentions of time periods in the Bible: Not one has a gap. (I can furnish verses if needed)

2. There is no secret pact or covenant created by this antichrist, which he then deviously breaks. This, too, is added to Daniel 9, because that verse is about Christ's wonderful work on the cross.

Do you see, in that last instance, how a belief-system can be very pernicious, actually covering up a wonderful Messianic passage of encouragement?

 

[OldRegular]

2. There is no secret pact or covenant created by this antichrist, which he then deviously breaks. This, too, is added to Daniel 9, because that verse is about Christ's wonderful work on the cross.

I have always wondered where the dispensationalists get that secret pact with the antichrist, or those 144,000 virgins preaching the gospel of the kingdom, or that big cube floating around in the sky. Is that what one would call adding to Scripture which is forbidden in Revelation 22:19?

Do you see, in that last instance, how a belief-system can be very pernicious, actually covering up a wonderful Messianic passage of encouragement?

I view all of Scripture as a great comfort to the believer because they tell us: We win they lose, or more precisely, through Jesus Christ we win they lose. Yet the dispensationalist would have us believe that the Church for which Jesus Christ died fails just as they say HE failed in HIS initial mission.:tear::tear::tear::tear:

 

[olegig]

asterisktom,

It is very ironic that a defender of the modern dispensational view on Daniel
May I ask the point for the term "modern", is this somehow intended to cast a position in a bad light?

Here is a list of some folks who did have a dispensational view:
[Passing from the apostolic period to that of the early Christian fathers, we have a witness, equally eminent, in Dr. H. Grattan Guinness, of England, who says: "It cannot be denied that for three centuries the church held the doctrine of the premillennial coming of Christ. I think I have gone through all the writings of the Fathers for three centuries pretty carefully, and I do not know of an exception unless it be Origin. It was the faith of Barnabas, Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, Papius, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Nepos, Irenaeus, Victorinus, Methodius, Lactantius, Hermas and many others-all were at one."]
http://www.biblebelievers.com/misc_periodical_articles/chr-workers_002.html

I have not checked them out, and don't intend to do so. My point is what difference does it make whether a position is ancient or modern?
There are many on my list and your list from the OP that probably believed in infant baptism,,,,,does that make it correct?

And what is wrong with "modern",,,cannot a Monday morning quarterback formulate a better game-plan than the coach before the game? Hind-sight can be of value.

One need not quibble over who the "he" is in Daniel because if amillennialism is indeed true, then it should hold up to scrutiny of what has taken place over the last few centuries. Maybe we do need a little "modern" Monday morning quarterbacking.

If, in fact, as OldRegular says we are currently in the thousand year reign, then what of all the scriptural passages that speak to what will be taking place on earth during that time?
Where is the lamb laying with the lion?
Where is the sword being beaten into the plow shear?
Where is the plowman catching up to the reaper because the crop is so heavy?

In your opinion when did the Lord Jesus Christ place His feet on the Mount of Olives and the rivers of life gush out?

All fulfilled prophecies recorded in scripture were fulfilled physically; therefore I ask when did that method of God change to fulfilling them spiritually?

Rev. 22:19 is one of the verses one reaches for when one is no longer interested in discussion, but just wants to criticize. But since you brought that verse up, in discussing this passage in Daniel, which position is the one that has to bring in outside material to construct their scenario? For the record, I am not bringing Rev. 22:19 into this. It is a serious charge, akin to saying, "Go to Hell."
I suppose that is yet to be seen.
I am also interested in your feeling toward the other verse I posted:

Revelation 3:9 (King James Version)
9Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Does one dare suppose the above might be speaking to those who hold to Replacement Theology?
I'm sure you are aware of the ancient teaching that says God set aside the Jew and now the Christians are to receive all the OT promises God made to the Jew.

Do you agree with the time-line put forth in post 9? I assume you do because you seem to be defending the post.
Do you feel we are currently in the thousand year reign of Christ?

Do you see, in that last instance, how a belief-system can be very pernicious, actually covering up a wonderful Messianic passage of encouragement?
Yes, and I am seeing it more and more all the time. :tear:

 

[asterisktom]

asterisktom,

It is very ironic that a defender of the modern dispensational view on Daniel
May I ask the point for the term "modern", is this somehow intended to cast a position in a bad light?

The problem is not whether a view is modern or not. The problem is when a view is not ancient.

Here is a list of some folks who did have a dispensational view:
[Passing from the apostolic period to that of the early Christian fathers, we have a witness, equally eminent, in Dr. H. Grattan Guinness, of England, who says: "It cannot be denied that for three centuries the church held the doctrine of the premillennial coming of Christ. I think I have gone through all the writings of the Fathers for three centuries pretty carefully, and I do not know of an exception unless it be Origin. It was the faith of Barnabas, Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, Papius, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Nepos, Irenaeus, Victorinus, Methodius, Lactantius, Hermas and many others-all were at one."]
http://www.biblebelievers.com/misc_periodical_articles/chr-workers_002.html

None of those listed are dispensational in the sense that modern disps use the term. Specifically, in reference to those two criteria I keep mentioning from Daniel. Now, of those who specifically wrote extensively on Daniel - Hippolytus, Ephrem Syrus, Theodoret, and Jerome - not one of those taught anything resembling the modern views on Daniel 9. Neither did Augustin when he touched upon Daniel in his City of God.

I have not checked them out, and don't intend to do so.

No. You haven't checked them out. I can tell. You just pasted in a list from someone else's research.

One need not quibble over who the "he" is in Daniel because if amillennialism is indeed true, then it should hold up to scrutiny of what has taken place over the last few centuries. Maybe we do need a little "modern" Monday morning quarterbacking.

When someone wrests a great passage and teaches that a large portion of that passage is not about Christ, but the opposite - Antichrist - how can this be a quibble?? Why don't we also "quibble" over whether Christ is truly God or not?

I am also interested in your feeling toward the other verse I posted:

Revelation 3:9 (King James Version)
9Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Does one dare suppose the above might be speaking to those who hold to Replacement Theology?
I'm sure you are aware of the ancient teaching that says God set aside the Jew and now the Christians are to receive all the OT promises God made to the Jew.

This is why I don't take you seriously. Two reasons, actually. 1. You keep evading my questions on Daniel, wanting to wander all over the place. 2. You put ridiculous words in my mouth I would never say.

Just go on back to your Biblebelievers.com and let the likes of Vance and the rest teach you. I'm done talking to you.

 

[Darrell C]

What you are asking me to do is to support your interpretation, not mine. I underlined just two of the areas of difference.

1. He "establishes" nothing. He "confirms" the covenant, something that already exists. See my earlier comments, or OR's.

2. He does not do this "at the beginning of the Tribulation" but during His earthly ministry. See my earlier comments or that link to my longer article.

Respectfully, I believe that an insistence that your view "coincides with scripture" indicates that you are imposing your thought processes on this passage rather than letting the text teach you.

This is all I have time for this morning. Anyway, this needs to be dealt with to have any foundation for discussing further points.

Take care.

Hi Asterisktom,

Please don't think I am imposing my view or presenting it as flawless. I would much rather discuss scripture than make enemies.

I will gladly look at what you present, and my statement that it didn't line up with scripture was not how I intended to come across.

Let me try again.

Point #1 is something to consider. You say it is something already established and then tie that to Christ's blood in relation to the New Covenant.
You still have a seven year period to deal with...if there is no gap between the 69th and 70th week, then it would stand to reason that if it is Christ's New Covenant being discussed in Daniel, then the events that follow would have occurred at that time. I agree that the Temple sacrifice became invalid at the time of Christ's death, but there is the problem of completing that timeline of the 3 1/2 and seven years...it doesn't work out too well.

How does Christ confirm the new covenant in His blood if it already exists, it then would not be new. The promise existed, but the covenant itself did not.

He established the New Covenant with His blood.

Does that make more sense (in question form)?

Point #2-The Mosaic Covenant (Covenant of Law) and The New Covenant were both established with the "sprinkling of blood". This happened at the time of their beginning.

 

[olegig]

asterisktom,

The problem is not whether a view is modern or not. The problem is when a view is not ancient.
I was really hoping for the Biblical view, then one can decide whether all those other men were right or wrong.

Neither did Augustin when he touched upon Daniel in his City of God.
Augustine, wasn't he the father of Catholism and Calvin's mentor?

No. You haven't checked them out. I can tell. You just pasted in a list from someone else's research.
Here you missed the point. The point is I can list a whole bunch of names just as you did in the OP; but does that give a position credibility? No, the proof of a position is in the scriptures.

When someone wrests a great passage and teaches that a large portion of that passage is not about Christ, but the opposite - Antichrist - how can this be a quibble?? Why don't we also "quibble" over whether Christ is truly God or not?
One way to test a theory is to carry it to its extreme.
When the amillennial position is carried to the extreme, then one can easily discern who the "he" is Daniel.

This is why I don't take you seriously.
How serious do you take Rev 3:9 and all the passages that describe the state of creation on earth during the thousand year reign?

1. You keep evading my questions on Daniel, wanting to wander all over the place.
The scriptural answers to my specific "wanderings" just might shed some light on the questions of Daniel.

2. You put ridiculous words in my mouth I would never say.
You seemed to be defending the postion of OldRegular, unless you tell us different, all I can assume is that you agree with his time-line.

Do agree with the time-line of OldRegular?
Do you feel we are presently in the thousand year reign of Christ?

By answering the above you can freely put your own words in your mouth.

Just go on back to your Biblebelievers.com and let the likes of Vance and the rest teach you. I'm done talking to you.
The best thing you could do to defend the amillennial position is to do so with scripture, not to say "you don't play by my rules, I'm not going to play with you anymore."

 

[Darrell C]

After the death of Jesus Christ the sacrifices and oblations were useless. Why do you think the curtain in the temple was torn asunder?

Hebrews makes it clear that the veil was symbolic of entrance to the presence of God. Jesus death (euphemistically called His body in Heb. 10:20)was the New and Living way. We no longer are limited to access through the Levitical High Priest, but have access to the throne of God through Jesus.

Your comment is too ambiguous to get an answer!

You got me there! We would need to discuss the fulfillment of the prophecy in more detail.

In Matthew 24 Jesus Christ is talking about two different events, the destruction of the temple which occurred in 70 AD and the 2nd coming at the end of the age.

This is what I was referring to in the above response. If the Lord spoke about A.D. 70, then the fulfillment will have to include fulfillment of all prophecy that goes with this passage. This we should discuss.

People argue about when Revelation was written. To me it is irrelevant. Revelation was written for the comfort of the early Church which was undergoing persecution from both Jews and Rome and for the comfort of the Church throughout time. We win they lose!.

Who would you consider "they" to be?


Revelation presents a picture of the struggle between good and evil between the 1st and 2nd coming of Jesus Christ, generally in symbolic language. We are currently living in the thousand years spoken of in Revelation 20. There will be tribulation for the Church throughout time until the 2nd coming as Jesus Christ warned. That tribulation may increase as the return of Jesus Christ approaches. However, there will be no pre trib rapture, no Great tribulation lasting 7 years and no earthly millennial kingdom. Furthermore there is only one verse mentioning a one thousand year reign which we are currently enjoying.

Thats great, but, aren't we technically in the second thousand year reign? Not trying to be facetious, but, the amillennial view is probably the view that makes the least sense to me.

But I would greatly desire to know why you believe this way.

When Jesus Christ returns in the power and glory of the Godhead as indicated in Matthew 24 and Revelation 19 there will be the great white throne judgment, Satan and all unsaved will be cast into the lake of fire and the Church will dwell throughout eternity in the New Heavens and New Earth with GOD.

Well, we believe differently enough for this to be answered. But, again, I would like to hear why you believe this way. I love R.C. Sproull, and understand he is amillennial (I was disappointed to find this out). He is one of the great thinkers in my opinion, but I disagree with him in this. I still love him as a brother, but, this particular line of thinking is something I have as yet had somebody present a sound basis for.

It is interesting that you accept a "new heaven and new earth", it was my understanding most amillennial believers believe the current earth "will last forever".

Gotta go, be back in the morning, and really look forward to discussing scripture.

God bless.

 

[Jerome]

Thinking for oneself is certainly important. But so is making good use of the noble, Berean efforts of those from previous generations.

Here is what leading Baptist pastors taught in centuries past:

Benjamin Keach endured the pillory in 1664 for daring to print his catechism A Child's Instructor.

From the trial record:

Clerk reads [from Keach's catechism for children]. "Question: How then shall it go with the saints? Answer: Oh very well! it is the Day that they have long'd for: then they shall hear that Sentence, Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you: And so shall they reign with Christ on the Earth a thousand Years, &c."
Judge: This is contrary to the Creed in the Book of Common-Prayer, and is an old Heresy, which was cast out of the Church a thousand Years ago, and was likewise condemned by the Council of Constance about five hundred Years ago, and hath lain dead ever since, till now this Rascal hath revived it.

....

Clerk: Also in another place thou hast wickedly and maliciously composed A Short Confession of Faith, in which thou hast affirmed thus, concerning the second Person in the Blessed Trinity, in these plain English words: "I also believe that he rose again the third Day from the Dead, and ascended into Heaven, and there now sitteth at the right hand of God the Father; and from thence he shall come again at the appointed time of the Father, to reign personally upon the Earth, and to be the Judge of the Quick and the Dead."
Judge: This is contrary to our Creed: for whereas he saith, "From thence he shall come again at the appointed time of the Father, to reign personally upon the Earth, and to be Judge both of the Quick and the Dead," our Creed only saith, "From thence he shall come to judge both the Quick and the Dead."

....

Judge: Benjamin Keach, you are here convicted of writing and publishing a seditious and scandalous Book, for which the Court's Judgment is this, and the Court doth award, That you shall go to Gaol for a Fortnight, without Bail or Manprise; and the next Saturday to stand upon the Pillory at Ailsbury for the space of two Hours, from Eleven of the clock to One, with a Paper upon your head with this Inscription, "For writing, printing, and publishing a schismatical Book, intitled, The Child's Instructor, or a New and Early Primmer." And the next Thursday to stand in the same manner, and for the same time, in the Market of Winslow; and there your Book shall be openly burnt before your Face by the common Hangman, in disgrace of you and your Doctrine. And you shall forfeit to the King's Majesty the sum of 20 l. and shall remain in Gaol until you find sureties for your good Behavior and Appearance at the next Assizes, there to renounce your Doctrine, and make such publick submission as shall be injoined you. Take him away, Keeper.
Keach: I hope I shall never renounce those Truths which I have written in that Book.

Yes, Pastor Keach was persecuted by the Church of England in 1664 for boldly teaching the Bible's Millennial Kingdom. Some here may recognize his name as a prominent signer of the 1689 London Baptist Confession.:thumbs:

 

[Jerome]

Another prominent signer of the 1689 Confession, Baptist pastor Hanserd Knollys, explains the Bible's resurrection and millennium teaching:

He will set up his Davidical Kingdom on Earth

The Resurrection of the Dead hath this Order, and is described by the Apostle in this manner, to wit, Christ first, I. Cor. 15. 22, 23, 24. afterwards they that are Christ's at his Coming. But the rest of the Dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished, Rev. 20. 5, 6. This is the first Resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first Resurrection. They shall reign with Christ a thousand years, and that on Earth, Rev. 5. 9, 10.

After the Saints are raised, and have lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years, shall be the general Resurrection, Rev. 20. 12, 13.

—Hanserd Knollys, The World that Now is; and the World that is to Come: Or the First and Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Wherein several Prophecies not yet fulfilled are Expounded (1681).


I wish more Baptists were in tune with - or even aware of - their own heritage.

 

[Jerome]

A contemporary report of what English Baptists of the 1700s believed:

Many of the Baptists believe the Millennium, or the saints living and reigning with Christ upon earth 1000 years, for which there have not been wanting many judicious advocates;

---James Murray, The History of Religion: Particularly of the Principal Denominations of Christians, 2d ed. (London, 1764) vol. 4, p. 225.


And here is what Morgan Edwards, who became a prominent Baptist pastor in America, wrote in the 1740s:

. . . my text, “The saints shall reign with Christ [on earth] a thousand years." Other texts say, that all "kingdoms and dominions under the whole heaven shall be given to the saints." (Dan. Vii-- 18. 27): That the saints "shall judge men and angels." (1 Cor. vi, 2. 3). Miserable work do the Antimillenarians make of these texts. And as miserable of the following; "When the son of man shall sit on his throne, ye [my twelve disciples] shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes Israel." (Matt. xix. 28). "I appoint unto you a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom." (Luke xxii. 29, 30.) "Hence forth I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my father's kingdom." (Mat. xxvi. 29.) "To sit on my right hand and on my left [in my kingdom] is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them " for whom it is prepared of my father." (Matt. xx.23). The meek shall inherit the earth." (Matt. v, 5. " Thy kingdom come" &c. (Matt. vi. 10) Literal millennarianism alone will do justice to these texts and many others;

. . . Another event prior to the Millennium is the binding of Satan and shutting him up in the abyss for a thousand years (Rev. xx. 1, 2, 3.). An event this long foreseen and dreaded by the devils (Matth viii. 29.). Poor work do the Antimillenarians or spiritualizing Millenarians (who are much the same) make of this matter: They say that the devil was bound when Christ came in the flesh; because (surfeit) oracles were silenced, and possessions checked: but if the Devil has not been loose these thousand years past, and for seven hundred and forty–two years besides, he never was loose in his life.